Sunday, September 12, 2004 10:18:12 AMI think that statistsics are a perfectly valid means of getting a point across, escpecially when the other side, the anti-gun lefties, use absolutely no statistics and rely completely on en emotional argument to make their case.

And yeah, the point about other countries is riduculous, Switzerland, for example, has one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of machine gun ownership by private citizens and one of the lowest rates of gun crimes.

Sunday, September 12, 2004 1:59:21 AMR2, if you were really smart, you'd know that people can't be boiled down to numbers and statistics don't mean squat.

However, as I stated before, I do NOT approve of a ban on assault-weapons (which is a bogus term anyways because anything can be an assault weapon if you threaten somebody with it).

And whoever said move to (insert foriegn country here) because they have fewer gun deaths, shut your f*cking mouth. When you adjust for gun deaths per capita you'd find that the gun death rate in any other country is about the same as the U.S. or Canada.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

This is a quote from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, one of the most radical anti-gun groups in the country. This shows the level of deception that the Gun-Fearing Wussies will stoop to in order to push their totalitarian policies onto the American people.

Saturday, September 11, 2004 5:54:26 PMWell, considering that "assault-weapons" were used in, well, basically no crimes before the ban, I don't think that the ban itself was anything more than an attempt by the looney left to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own the firearms of their choice.

A compilation of statistics from 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994 showed that “Assault weapons” were used in less than 2% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban.

Trust me on this, there wasn't an epidemic of drive-by bayonetings before the ban was enacted. It's a stupid, misguided, law that existed only for the purpose of stifling the rights of lawful gun owners.

Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:06:35 PMJust to make another point, here are some survey results from a Time magazine survey:

How would you rate the effectiveness ofthe Brady Bill and the “assault weapons”ban in preventing the illegal use anddistribution of guns?

0.52% Very effective3.79% Somewhat effective6.19% Somewhat effective87.27% Not at all effective2.23% Don't know

a different point than the one you were making, but interesting nonetheless.

As for your comment about using a handgun instead of a rifle.... I finf it completely surprising that a anti-gun person such as yourself would support the use of handguns instead of rifles, usually it goes the opposite way. Personally, I don't have a rifle for defensive purposes, it is just not my preference, I prefer pistols and shotguns, however, some people swear by it, so they should be allowed to use them if they choose to. And that is fine with me, as a rifle is really less dangerous in the hands of a panicked individual tha

Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:02:44 PMInteresting results in that survey. Frankly, I believe that the high level of people that thought the ban should be renewed is simply because of the massive amound of misinformation and outright lies spread by the liberal media about the ban. I imagine that if the survey takers had asked the people whether they supported banning the certain features that are covered under the ban the results would have been quite different. That kinda beings me back to my earlier point about the very name of the ban being misleading, in that there is actually no such thing as an "assault weapon" it is simply a scary word made up by Dianne Feinstein and her hyprocritical cronies.

Saturday, September 11, 2004 8:44:32 AMIF you don't see why someone would want a semi-automatic to defend themselves then you obviously know nothing about firearms. The only alternative to a semi-automatic rifle (if we are leaving handguns completely out the equation) is a shotgun (inaccurate, but effective, but can cause severe collateral damage in confined spaces) or a bolt-action rifle (completely out of the question, as you have to charge the bolt after each round is fired. Semi-auto simply means that each time you pull the trigger, a round is fired from the gun, just like in any hunting rifle or handgu; it is not automatic, that is, it doesn't continually shoot rounds as you depress the trigger.

And no, a bazooka is, by definition, not a defensive weapon in the first place, and second of all, it is considered a DD or Destructive Device and would fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and is illegal anyways. Try again.

Saturday, September 11, 2004 8:41:56 AM2/3 of the general public don't support the ban, once they actually learn that it doesn't ban machine-guns as the liberal media would like them to belive. I have seen poll after poll after poll this month and have yet to see one in which the majority of Americans support the ban once the truth gets out.

And your NRA ststistic is complete bullpoo, speaking as a Lifetime NRA member and someone who knows hundreds of other NRA members, I have never heard of any of them, or any NRA member, period, supporting the ban. NRA members are the most educated group of people when it comes to gun laws and are (the vast, vast majority anyway) too smart to support such a toothless and absurd piece of legislation.

Friday, September 10, 2004 11:58:04 PMWhat does supporting the Asault Weapons Ban have to do with being a hippy? 2/3 of the general people support the ban, and even 1/3 of NRA members. So that makes most of us idiot hippies, I guess. And I still don't see why anyone would need a semi-automatic to defend themself anyway. What next? People wanting bazookas to "defend" themselves?

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:19:59 PMYeah, I forgot to mention the bayonet thing.

Also, the AWB doesn't stop ANYONE from buying an "assault-weapon" as the ban only prohibits the use of pre-ban parts on post-ban manufactured guns or the manufacture of new guns that fall under the terms of the ban. You can still walk into any gun store and buy weapons that fall under the ban, they were just manufactured pre-1994.

Friday, September 10, 2004 11:16:08 AMBravo r2korn, and smarth! However one point I would like to make is the AWB did not ban "certain cosmetic features""to look a little scarier". In the final draft the net result was a ban on bayonet mounts on rifles. Anyone can still buy an AR-15 (civilian version), or the Chinese version of the AK-47 in semi-only, as long as one can not attach a knife to the flash suppressor. Oh, wait, flash suppressors were banned also, so now I think there called muzzle ports. But I know I sleep better knowing no one will ever be able to stab me with their "assault-weapon" This was classic legislation passed for campaign PR, and had nothing to do with any kind of assault-weapon ban.

Friday, September 10, 2004 10:42:36 AMSemi-auto rifles have never been the weapon of choice for drive-by gangster scumbags, so I'm not sure how the AWB would have affected the number of drive-bys. My guess is that tougher laws like "three strikes you're out" had a much greater effect on the number of gun crimes committed. Also, it doesn't matter if you're "for" or "against" the right to keep and bear arms. Self-defense is an inalienable right, and no idiot who doesn't even know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto has any business sitting his fat ass down in the middle of this issue. Glad there are at least a few here who know their asses from a whole in the ground. Liberty or death, motherdraters.

Friday, September 10, 2004 9:57:07 AMYou people aren't very smart, are you?

The AWB bans SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons that have certain cosmetic features that make them safer, more ergonomic, or simpler to use, and that cause them to have the physical appearance of military weapons. You twats don't realize that assault weapons are not machine guns; machine guns were banned by the National Firearms Act of 1934. "Assault-weapons" (which is a miuse of terms anyways, as there is no such thing as an "assault-weapon" in firearms lexicon, there are assault rifles, meaning the fully-automatic machine guns that the military uses, but no such thing as an "assault weapon")are no more dangerous in reality than any other rifle, they fire the exact same ammunition, semi-automatically (one round at a time) and just happen to look a little scarier to Idiot Hippys™ than a standard hunting rifle.

Friday, September 10, 2004 7:25:52 AMI like the idea of a federal funded 'gun saftey' program required to buy guns, I think it would help cut back on the accidental deaths, although when Jimbo and his friends are out drinking and shooting their firearms someone is bound to get shot somewhere.

Friday, September 10, 2004 2:00:36 AMNothing is more true than that. Or a crowbar, or baseball bat... whatever happened to a good ole' frying pan *PAAAANG*. Cant imagine many people would survive that now, and hell if they do they will be mentally scarred, and in jail. Good detterent.

Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:31:45 PMAlmost everyone who is shot is killed by someone they know. The cases of people using guns in self defense are few and far between. And when someone does break into your house, you can kill them with a good old fashioned shotgun if need be, you don't need a frickin machine gun.

Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:37:37 PMConsidering crimes like drive-bys and the like dropped by about 2/3 since this ban came into action, I would hope they renewed it. I am all for people having the right to bare arms but I hardly think it's neccesary for someone to own an assault rifle. Just imo.